The Incredible Burt Wonderstone (2013) Review

“The Incredible Burt Wonderstone”

A cavalcade of talented people does not necessarily make a good movie. All of those elements need to come together in a way that gels, and has creative inspiration behind it. The new comedy full of talented people, “The Incredible Burt Wonderstone,” certainly has the ingredients and the premise ripe for comedic potential. Using magicians and illusionists as the backbone for a crazy comedy is a sound one, and I can see someone running with that concept in a hilarious way. Unfortunately, “Burt Wonderstone” is not that movie I would have hoped for.

As a child, bullies harassed Burt, and his single mother often stayed at work late. But one year for his birthday, she gave him a magic set that entranced and encouraged him to practice it. He soon befriends another outcast at school, Anton, and the two of them work together to form a magic act. Flash-forward decades later, and the two of them have become successful Las Vegas magicians, only now their popularity is waning after years of tedious tricks. Soon Burt’s ego gets the best of him, and with a new rival stealing the spotlight he must get over himself and work together with Anton on a comeback.

There are two simple ways of describing “Burt Wonderstone:” wasted potential and one-note. I would also add not too funny. There are certainly a bunch of laugh-out-loud moments, although they are frequently drowned by long stretches of flat jokes. Most of this has to do with the characterization of Burt, who is so egotistical and shallow that he becomes an annoying and tiresome protagonist. Even though a clueless and aloof buffoon would seem like a perfect fit for Steve Carell, the actor never manages to go behind the same vain shtick. When his personality turnaround comes, it is hard to care because the material wasn’t funny enough to make the jerk persona entertaining.

It doesn’t help that with so much focus on Burt, the (many) supporting characters often feel pushed to the sidelines. Steve Buscemi (Anton) leaves the movie for a long period of time, and having him around longer could have given more heart to the movie. Olivia Wilde’s love interest is there just to be the butt of Burt’s antics, and Alan Arkin (as Burt’s magician role model) shines in the few scenes he has. Only Jim Carrey, arguably the funniest part of the movie, makes a real impression. As the rival Steve Gray, Carrey plays a faux Criss Angel type who puts himself through endurance tests rather than traditional magic acts, and I would love to have seen a movie based around him instead.

On the surface level, “Burt Wonderstone” has the feel of a Will Ferrell man-child movie a la “Blades of Glory” and “Anchorman.” But “Wonderstone” lacks the comedic energy and sense of absurdity that those movies had. It feels reigned in, and often hits the same beats seen shortly before: Burt is shallow, Burt is sexist, and Steve might be psychotic. For a movie that features people performing seemingly impossible acts, only on rare occasions does it feel like it harnesses that silly liveliness. Most of those moments come near the end, and to its credit, the final punch line to the climax was absolutely hysterical, so the movie went out on a high note. Even before that, when Carell and Carrey square off against each other at a birthday party, the interplay between the “Bruce Almighty” costars is frequently funny.

The same cannot be said for the rest of the movie though. Beyond not being very funny, the annoying nature of the main character is a hindrance rather than being hilarious, and his one-note nature becomes tiring before long. Even with other capable actors such as James Gandolfini, Gillian Jacobs, and Brad Garrett, as well as “Horrible Bosses” writers John Francis Daley and Jonathon Goldstein, “The Incredible Burt Wonderstone” remains in the safe middle ground for comedies. It is never horrendously bad and it is never consistently outrageously funny, merely standing as blandly forgettable.

2/4

Oz: The Great and Powerful (2013) Review

“Oz: The Great and Powerful”

Prequels to classic movies are all the rage these days. There is plenty of them out there, but the problem is that few of them are complete successes. For every unquestionably good one, like “Rise of the Planet of the Apes,” there are at least a few less-than-fully-satisfying ones like “Hannibal Rising” and the new “Star Wars” entries. This is understandable, as it is much harder to create the buildup to an already existing movie than it is to continue off said movie in a sequel. Still, Hollywood keeps on trying, which leads us to the most recent inclusion in the craze, “Oz: The Great and Powerful.”

Positioned as a prequel to “The Wizard of Oz,” “Great and Powerful” follows the story of how the wizard himself came to power in the eternally green land. It turns out he was not really a wizard, but rather a magician at a traveling circus. His womanizing ways get him in trouble with the other circus mates, and in the midst of chase, a tornado arrives to pull him away in a hot air balloon. Once the storm dies down, he finds himself in the strange fantasy land of Oz (which is also his name), where he is greeted by the witch Theodora. She reveals that a great wizard was prophesized to save the land from destruction, and that he must be that very wizard. Reluctant as he is, Oz plays along with this, until he soon realizes that he will have to step up and be the hero of Oz everyone hopes him to be.

The basic storyline is nothing new; prophecies in fantasy plots, especially ones with witches, have been done to death. The real thrill is in the details that update the famous world for the 21^st century. The Oz land presented here is much more detailed than the one imagined for Dorothy Gale in 1939, and while plenty of it is done with (impressive) computer effects, the use of real sets and props whenever possible grounds the movie in its established reality. From a technical standpoint, between the special effects, costumes, and art design, “Oz” is near perfect.

When it comes to the casting, things get a little uneven. All of the supporting players are great in their roles, notably Rachel Weisz as the evil witch Evanora and Michelle Williams as Glinda the Good Witch. Williams arguably has the tougher job, since she has to compete with Billie Burke’s portrayal in the ’39 movie. She acquits herself well though, displaying both innate sweetness and wit as Glinda sees through Oz’s sham attitude. For Weisz, given that her character is not in the original film, she is able to act free of expectation and provides a sense of seething menace.

This a slight heads up, as the next paragraph will have some spoilers, so if you want to go into the movie completely blind then you can skip to the end of this review. I’m thankful that Weisz was present on villain duty, as Mila Kunis (Theodora) is not able to convey the same evil presence. She is fine at first, where her wide-eyed persona fits Theodora’s naïve nature very well, but once her character transforms into the Wicked Witch (yes, THAT Wicked Witch), her performance is less than convincing. Even without unfavorably stacking her against Margaret Hamilton’s iconic iteration of the character, Kunis is simply miscast for this part. She never quite finds the right tone in her voice to be a considerable threat, and the post-transformation makeup is less than great.

Meanwhile, James Franco, as the titular Oz, is the opposite of Kunis. Oz is meant to start out as a fake and a put-on, but Franco overplays the smarminess to a degree where it is hard to get into the character. Although as the movie and Oz’s character arc moves on, Franco settles into the role with his easy charm and humor. As good he gets, he is often upstaged by the sidekick characters, who are perhaps the best part of the movie. They may not be as memorable as the Scarecrow, Tin Man, or Cowardly Lion, yet Zach Braff’s flying monkey Finley is a consistently funny comic relief and Joey King’s China Girl provides an emotional backbone to the grandly surreal visuals.

Speaking of flying monkeys, the evil ones make a return here, and will most likely terrify children even more so than before. They also signify another successful part of this prequel, which are the references to the classic film. While most prequels crowbar in references as pure fan service simply to get reaction out of the audience, director Sam Raimi and writers David Lindsay-Abaire and Mitchell Kapner manage to successfully integrate them into the story without feeling forced. The sleeping poppy field is neatly incorporated into the third act conflict, the yellow brick road is ever-present without a character awkwardly pointing it out to the audience, and the wizard’s smoke illusion has a clever setup along with many more Easter eggs to find.

All in all, even with a couple acting issues, few prequels are as good as “Oz: The Great and Powerful.” It manages to both avoid the trap of predictably linking up perfectly with the original and at the same time setting up many of the elements that will come into play later in the story of Oz. Although it has the impossible task of living up to an untouchable piece of cinema, “Great and Powerful” is a competent follow-up that finds the right tone to appeal to both audiences young and old. It is certainly better than 1985’s disturbingly traumatic “Return to Oz.”

3/4

Side Effects (2013) Review

“Side Effects”

Steven Soderbergh is not a filmmaker that likes to settle into a safe zone and follow a certain niche as some others do. With the exception of his “Ocean’s” sequels, just about each and every one of his movies is their own entity. Almost none of them fall into the same genres or styles, as in the last few years the man has leaped from the dry comedy of “The Informant” to the eerie dread in “Contagion” and recently to the experiences of male strippers in “Magic Mike.” With an output as diverse and experimental as his, his films don’t always strike a chord in me, but when they do they hit hard. His most recent effort, “Side Effects” decidedly falls into the latter category.

With her husband Martin recently released from a four-year prison sentence, Emily Taylor is looking to rebuild her life with him. Things remain difficult for her to cope with however when her depression begins to take over again in a failed suicide attempt. Her doctor, Jonathon Banks, prescribes her to an anti-depressant to ease her back into life, but this doesn’t work as well as they would hope. After speaking with her previous psychiatrist, Jonathon prescribes her to a newly tested and developed drug on the market. Things appear to be going fine at first, until a shocking event sends Emily and Jonathon’s lives spiraling out of control.

With a smart director like Soderbergh at the helm, along with frequent writing collaborator Scott Z. Burns, “Side Effects” is able to elevate itself above what could have been B-grade thriller material. The surprising turns that the plot takes reminded me of the frequent twists in the outrageous but fun “Wild Things,” though they are handled here with sharper precision and less trashy abandon. As with other Soderbergh works, the film has been filed down to its core elements. No shot is wasted and every scene counts. Him and Burns play the audience like a fiddle with skillful misdirection and manipulation, always keeping them on their toes and never settling into a predictable path.

It also helps to have a talented cast to guide them along, of which this film isn’t lacking. Despite not having too much screen time compared to his three costars, Channing Tatum continues to impress me recently as an actor. For someone who I used to dread seeing in a movie, his continuing experience with Soderbergh (he was also in “Haywire” and “Magic Mike”) has paid off very well in honing his skills. And after a seemingly long absence from movies, Catherine Zeta-Jones looks to relish having the more “fun” role of the bunch. As Emily’s previous doctor, she often gets the juiciest dialogue to spout, particularly in her exchanges with Jude Law.

The real meat of the story involves the relationship between Emily and her new doctor, who are played by Rooney Mara and Jude Law. Mara’s more internalized acting style (also put to great use in her breakout role in “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo”) complements her character nicely, who usually appears to be in a different world than everyone else. She initially seems to be the protagonist, but soon the focus shifts to Banks, at which time Law takes command. His role is the most difficult, having to transition between caring, obsessive, frustrated and distraught often in the same scene. It is an impressive performance from an actor who is often, in my opinion, undervalued by some. Banks’ side of the story adds a timely and relevant edge to the movie that separates it from other thrillers made in the same vain. In a time where everyone is taking prescriptions or some other form of medication, and people are worried about how taking so many of those will affect their brain chemistry, this lends to the ominous and clinical style of the movie. In the grand scheme of things, the subject matter is mostly window dressing, although it definitely adds to the psychological elements of the thriller plot.

Whether or not everything totally adds up in the end hardly matters. Burns and Soderbergh have constructed a taut and tightly wound thriller that takes the audience on a suspenseful ride. I have heard some call the movie “Hitchcockian” in its twists and psychological underpinnings, and I would agree with that assessment too. Even with the clear influence from the master of suspense, “Side Effects” carves out its own course with the modern premise at its core and strive for smartly realized entertainment.

3.5/4

Warm Bodies (2013) Review

“Warm Bodies”

When we think of romanticized horror monsters, we mostly think of vampires. Whether it be “Twilight” or the Lestat novels by Anne Rice (the most famous being “Interview with the Vampire”), vampires have a long history of being romantic when they aren’t too preoccupied with being vicious blood-suckers. Zombies have not had the same luxury. Throughout their long history in film, zombies have been treated as mindless hordes that are oftentimes just plot devices to explore other themes. However, the new zombie movie “Warm Bodies” looks to shake up the zombie formula by showing a side of the flesh-eaters that we weren’t privy to.

Despite not remembering his name, R is a zombie with a pretty well adjusted life. In his spare time, he has taken up residence inside an abandoned airplane where he gathers possessions from a lost world to pass the time. See in this world, zombies aren’t totally mindless; they are just limited in their verbal communication skills and are shackled by the need to consume human flesh. When a group of humans venture out on a medicine run and the zombies fight with them in heated battle, R takes notice of tough girl Julie. After eating the brains of her boyfriend, R gains the memories of their relationship and manages to save Julie from being eaten by his friends. After taking her back to his place in order to keep her safe, he begins having feelings towards her, even with the obvious barriers keeping them apart.

As “Warm Bodies” continues on, the allusions to “Romeo and Juliet” become more obvious as the story moves forward. If you still did not catch them after the blatant homage to the famous balcony scene, then perhaps you should brush up on your Shakespeare. But the movie doesn’t slavishly devote itself to repeating the well-travelled beats of the classic story. Also, surprisingly for a zombie movie, it establishes a much more light and sweet tone. R’s internal monologue smoothly introduces us to this world with deadpan humor, and the combination of Nicholas Hoult’s performance and writer/director Jonathon Levine’s script gives the movie its own particular identity.

When separated from his inner thoughts, Hoult has to create an entire character out of mannerisms and facial expressions. The subtle touches he incorporates go a long way in helping the audience identify with him and his tragic existence. Despite barely being able to speak, the relationship and chemistry between him and Teresa Palmer is very believable. Palmer bares a more-than-passing resemblance to Kristen Stewart, but she is much more effective at creating an angst-ridden yet likable love interest than her more famous counterpart often is. Rob Corddry and Analeigh Tipton are also nice highlights as R and Julie’s best friends respectively, with Corddry even getting a couple unexpectedly touching scenes.

Even though this is a PG-13 zombie movie, which I would usually say is heresy, Levine is cleverly able to accomplish a decent amount of carnage without treading into the R rating that would restrict his target audience. The zombie attack scenes don’t feel too constrained and tamed by the rating (though they don’t reach the levels of gore you would expect from zombies) and the final battle with the “Bonies” (super decomposed zombies with only their hunger for flesh) is a well-constructed action set piece. Where Levine stumbles is in the plot developments he introduces once the other zombies learn of R and Julie’s relationship. Without spoiling anything, the ideas presented fit with the humorous and romantic tone, but their execution feels rushed and rather vague in the explanation, requiring some suspension of disbelief. Likewise, the concept of R gaining Julie’s boyfriend’s memories is intriguing yet underdeveloped. The movie makes it appear as if R is the only zombie with this ability, and pushes away the implications of all the other ones possessing this too. It would have been nice to see Corddry’s character experience this too.

Still, “Warm Bodies” hits the right targets it aims for, namely the dry humor, characters, and romantic bond between its two leads. If you were a fan of Levine’s previous movie, “50/50,” “Bodies” contains the same qualities that made that one such a treat too, just with more dead bodies and a more prevalent high concept hook. Valentine’s Day may have passed but its appeals can still be felt without a holiday to boost them up.

3/4

Mama (2013) Review

“Mama”

Guillermo del Toro is a man who genuinely loves horror movies. Even when he isn’t making horror movies of his own (such as “Pans Labyrinth” and “The Devil’s Backbone”), he is producing original horror works by newcomer directors. Even though not all of them have been of consistent quality (for every great “The Orphanage” there is an average “Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark”), there has been a constant theme of horror mixed with the dark fantasy that his directed work is known for. His new producing effort, “Mama,” is closer to the lower end of the spectrum, although it’s positive virtues are strong enough to counterbalance the many stumbles along the way.

Through a series of events that start with the 2008 financial crisis, a father kills his wife and coworkers and then takes off with his two daughters. The three of them mysteriously disappear and aren’t heard from for five years. During that time, the father’s twin brother has been tirelessly searching for them, to the irritation of his punk rocker girlfriend since the two of them are strapped for cash. When the girls are miraculously found alive, they are put under their uncle’s care in a house where they can be observed and reintegrated back into society. However, the ghostly being, who the girls call Mama, that looked after them all these years isn’t too keen on them being taken away, and begins terrorizing the couple.

Ironically, despite being ostensibly a horror movie, “Mama” is more successful and compelling when it comes to the characters and the initial premise than it is when it turns up the scares. The traditional trappings and beats of other ghost and haunted house movies are frequently hit, so there is a been-there-done-that vibe that has to be overcome. While director Andres Muschietti (adapting his own short film) doesn’t have a grasp on suspense like the best horror directors out there, he has verve to carry out these sequences to creepy enough effect, and conceives of a few creative bits. The one that stood out the most was a sly camera trick where it appears as if the two sisters are playing with a blanket, only for us to see the uncle’s girlfriend, Annabel, and the other sister in the opposite room.

Unfortunately, these scares are rather spaciously spread apart, which leaves some sections of the movie hanging with dead air. But thankfully, the acting and character development is uncharacteristically above average for a horror picture. The actresses playing sisters Victoria and Lilly, Megan Charpentier and Isabelle Nelisse respectively, do a superb job of portraying both the feral and sweet sides of these girls. Their first appearance after the five-year gap is arguably scarier than any of Mama’s ghostly tricks, primarily due to the convincingly wild and animalistic acting on the part of these two girls. It also helps that the Oscar nominated Jessica Chastain is playing Annabel. Annabel’s contentious relationship with the girls and her unease about being shoved into a mother role she didn’t ask for provides a compelling backbone to latch onto. Annabel could have easily been unlikable and annoying in the hands of a lesser actress, but Chastain is able to walk that fine line by absolutely selling her character’s transformation.

While the core plot dynamics are solid, Muschietti is unsteady when it comes to exploring Mama herself. There are points where it seems like he did not know how to incorporate some background details or a necessary character action, so he awkwardly shoehorns in unexplained visions for an exposition dump. And when the plot arrives at its conclusion, the ideas behind this end point are certainly unique, although the execution could have been refined. The special effects become overly elaborate, and the tone shifts suddenly from out-and-out horror to something closer to one of del Toro’s dark fantasies. Had the presence of these fantasy elements been emphasized previously rather than rely on the usual ghost movie scares, this shift would have felt more natural.

Because of these deficiencies, I would not exactly call “Mama” a particularly good horror movie. With that said, I greatly appreciated Muschietti’s ability to create well-developed characters (a rarity in this genre) and inject some creativity even amid the more familiar parts. I would like to see what he could do in a future film, perhaps taking more time to refine the screenplay, since it looks like he has the talent to pull off something more noteworthy. “Mama” is not exactly a smash debut for the man, though it shows glimmers of promise for what he could possibly achieve, which is more than I can say for the hacks typically hired to churn out a fast and cheap studio horror movie.

2.5/4

Gangster Squad (2013) Review

“Gangster Squad”

There was a time when I was looking forward to “Gangster Squad”…and that time was September 2012. The movie was originally supposed to come out then, until the tragic Aurora theatre shooting occurred. This forced the filmmakers to reshoot and change a scene that involved the gangsters shooting up a movie theatre, an understandable decision, and then push the movie back to January. I thought this might hurt the movie, yet there are so many other problems going on here that perhaps the studio should have extended their reshoot schedule.

In 1940s Los Angeles, gangster Mickey Cohen has risen in the criminal underworld and tightened his grip over the city. With Cohen’s empire expanding every day, the LAPD has been at a loss in their side of the war. To counteract this, they have assigned Sgt. John O’Mara to put together an off-the-record strike team of cops to engage in sabotage and flat-out battle with Cohen’s thugs.

The core concept at the center of “Gangster Squad” is irresistible, prime material for a pulpy cops-and-robbers yarn with a sense of fun. The problem is that “Zombieland” director Ruben Fleischer can’t quite find the right balance in tone. There are flashes where Fleischer lets it rip and embraces the pulp, especially in the final shootout where both sides of the law engage guns blazing. A duel sequence between O’Mara and Cohen demonstrates the director’s skill with slow motion, and the visuals contain the deep contrast and flashy colors of an atmospheric comic book.

Too often though, Fleischer forgets to have fun, and treats the material with hard straight face. “Gangster Squad” frequently shows its violent side, yet it frequently treads on the side of grim and unpleasant rather than lively and colorful. The reason why the famous bat scene in “The Untouchables” (a movie that “Squad” is definitely using as a blueprint) works is because it is a shock to the audience. When your movie lingers on the details of a man getting a drill to the face or another having acid poured on his “lower parts,” it loses its effect on the viewer and numbs them to the glumness of it all. The overall result feels like an attempt to add gravitas to thin material that does not warrant it.

Screenwriter Will Beall wants to capture the feel of the classic ‘40s gangster pictures, but his horrendous ear for dialogue leaves a lot to be desired. Characters talk in cornball catchphrases half the time that would have felt too cheesy even 70 years ago, and during an action scene it is hard not to chortle at Cohen’s laughable exclamation, “Here comes Santy Claus!” It is a shame really, since Sean Penn, who plays Cohen, is the only actor here who seems to have understand the kind of movie this could have been. His larger than life and exaggerated performance breathes life into otherwise flat scenes, even as he has to wrestle with Beall’s clichéd words and some unnecessary facial makeup right out of “Dick Tracy.”

The rest of the actors are not as fun to watch, although they hold their own. Josh Brolin (O’Mara), Ryan Gosling, and Giovanni Ribisi are the only ones in the titular squad that get significant development, and the rest of the characters rely on the fact that they are played by recognizable faces like Anthony Mackie, Michael Pena, and Robert Patrick. While the actors are fine in their roles, we don’t get to see them interact enough as a team with the exceptions of Brolin and Gosling. Likewise, Gosling’s relationship with Emma Stone, playing Cohen’s girl Grace, is pushed aside, and Stone is wasted in this slight role.

This sounds like I really hate “Gangster Squad,” but that wouldn’t be true. It held my interest for the most part and had enough entertaining pieces to keep me going. The movie is more one full of disappoint than outright badness (barring that terrible dialogue). With a couple rewrites and some fine-tuning on the tone, it could have been something more than the sum of its parts. The talent is there, it is just not being used to the fullest extent. Unfortunately, between this and his last movie, “30 Minutes or Less,” it looks as if the instant goodwill and promise that Ruben Fleischer displayed in “Zombieland” has dried up and left him a one-hit wonder.

2/4

The Last Stand (2013) Review

“The Last Stand”

Arnold Schwarzenegger has been off of the big screen for too long. I’m not counting his 10-minute appearances in the “Expendables” movies. I’m talking about lead roles, in which his last one was “Terminator 3” way back in 2003 before he became the governor of California. That is 10 years too many to wait for fans of Arnold’s unique screen presence. Well now the great Austrian is back in the new action film, “The Last Stand,” and while this comeback is not up to the man’s classics, it is an enjoyable romp for the time it lasts.

When a notorious criminal escapes from the F.B.I. and makes his way towards the Mexican border, the town of Sommerton is all that stands between him and the border. With only a few deputies and willful citizens to help out, Sheriff Ray Owens will have to hold out on his own without federal help if he is to stop this man from escaping justice.

While “The Last Stand” is most certainly Arnold’s show, the trailers have downplayed Forest Whitaker’s presence, despite him taking up a large portion of the first half of the plot. This section occasionally cuts to Arnold and the townsfolk of Sommerton to build them up, but Whitaker’s F.B.I. agent Bannister has to deal with the criminal Cortez for a while first. It is a fine setup with some entertaining action and creative escapes orchestrated by Cortez’s gang, however once Cortez rides off towards Sommerton, Bannister suddenly becomes a tertiary character with little to do. Even though Schwarzenegger is the real reason to see the movie, it felt slightly disingenuous to focus on another character for a time and then almost completely drop him until the very end.

Once the attention shifts more to Owens, the movie does get a greater jolt of life, both in the action sequences and in a newfound dose of humor. Arnold is not above a few jabs at his old age and less-than-Mr. Olympia physique, and there is a darkly comic streak that comes through in the action. When a hot director talent from Asia (i.e. John Woo) comes to Hollywood, the fear is that their wild style would be toned down to be generic and safe; not so for Jee-woon Kim. Although “The Last Stand” is nowhere near as ballsy as his “I Saw the Devil” or as loopy as “The Good, the Bad, the Weird,” there is certainly evidence of Kim’s high-energy style that elevates it from the glut of throwaway action trash. His skill with orchestrating inventive and fluid action helps this out, and the flashes of lunacy he injects liven things up, notably when Johnny Knoxville’s gun nut uses a flare gun on one poor henchman. There is nothing in here that matches Schwarzenegger’s delirious rampage in “Commando,” but Arnold gets plenty of times to show he has still “got it,” even in a mano-a-mano fight with Cortez at the end.

It is a shame though that Cortez is a rather flat villain, partly due to Eduardo Noriega’s one-note sneering, mostly due to him being confined in his super-charged car 90 percent of the time. He is not given much to do, and does not stand out in the time given. Making up for this is Peter Storemare as his right-hand man. Storemare, who you may recognize from his other fun villain roles in “Fargo,” “Constantine” and “Bad Boys II,” brings personality and presence to what would otherwise be a faceless character. I almost wish he had played the main villain instead.

These setbacks hold back “The Last Stand” from being a totally triumphant return to the glory days of Schwarzenegger’s career (and based on the piss-poor box office returns, it looks like this is his real life last stand), but it is diverting and enjoyable enough to check out if you’re either an Arnold or action fan. The violence is unabashedly bloody and fun and the humor clicks more often than not. Also, it is probably better than Stallone’s upcoming non-Rocky/Rambo solo action movie “Bullet to the Head.”

2.5/4